It doesn't matter, what matters is that the man with the biggest gun WILL make the rules.

You don't think it matters, but guns and amo don't pop out of thin air. The man with the bigger gun must have done something significant to get the money to pay for that big gun. That man now likely has a lot of interest in protecting his huge amount of wealth, too. Likely, he also has an interest in continuing to do what he did to keep that wealth coming in, right?

It doesn't matter, what matters is that the man with the biggest gun WILL make the rules.

You don't think it matters, but guns and amo don't pop out of thin air. The man with the bigger gun must have done something significant to get the money to pay for that big gun. That man now likely has a lot of interest in protecting his huge amount of wealth, too. Likely, he also has an interest in continuing to do what he did to keep that wealth coming in, right?

It doesn't matter, what matters is that the man with the biggest gun WILL make the rules.

You don't think it matters, but guns and amo don't pop out of thin air. The man with the bigger gun must have done something significant to get the money to pay for that big gun. That man now likely has a lot of interest in protecting his huge amount of wealth, too. Likely, he also has an interest in continuing to do what he did to keep that wealth coming in, right?

Sure. Obviously the wealthy will have the biggest guns. Obviously they will stay wealthy by putting those big guns to good use enslaving people, just like in the feudal days.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1

Most people don't have the wherewithal, the defensive capabilities (either physical or legal), or the willingness to sacrifice their lives, in order to retain what was originally theirs

Question. Would most people who currently pay taxes for government police, if they no longer had to pay taxes, would be able to afford to pay that exact same amount of money for private police?

I'll leave you to discover the imbalance of your solution. I'll give you some hints: competition implies multiple services. How many police can be brought to bear on a particular problem when collecting revenue from customers?

Who exactly does the company sell to? Security firms? Or maybe the company owner decides that he wants to be the top dog? What now?

If some company spends billions of dollars on research and development for the sake of just wasting that money to sit on a nuke, hell more power to them, though I seriously doubt private investors would give the company the money to accomplish that. And if some individual manages to do that themselves for the sake of holding the world hostage, then not only will regulatory governments be useless to stop that, but that individual will likely incite a global war of the entire world v.s. him.

Most people don't have the wherewithal, the defensive capabilities (either physical or legal), or the willingness to sacrifice their lives, in order to retain what was originally theirs

Question. Would most people who currently pay taxes for government police, if they no longer had to pay taxes, would be able to afford to pay that exact same amount of money for private police?

I'll leave you to discover the imbalance of your solution. I'll give you some hints: competition implies multiple services. How many police can be brought to bear on a particular problem when collecting revenue from customers?

Money will buy justice and protection. The people with the most money will be best protected, do they'll make all the rules.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1

Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court.

Do half the people disagree with a government court where you live???

Yes, but they are forced to follow the decisions and can't just run off to a competing court for a favorable decision, so it's not an issue.

You said half the people disagree with a court, not a court's decision. Why do they still use that court if half the people think it's unfair? Or did you really mean half the people, after choosing a court they want, just disagree with the decisions?

Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court.

Do half the people disagree with a government court where you live???

You're forgetting that there are no laws in your liberland, and everyone has their own idea what the laws should be, and they all use courts which favor their view, and in general, there's lots of courts.

Again, no different than current international system of law. During disputes, lawyers for both parties come to an agreement on what court or arbitrage system they are willing to settle disputes in, and agree to follow the final court decision beforehand, or risk losing business.You guys are arguing about how things are stupid and will never work in the real world, when the things you are arguing against are already how things are in a real world.

Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court.

Do half the people disagree with a government court where you live???

Yes, but they are forced to follow the decisions and can't just run off to a competing court for a favorable decision, so it's not an issue.

You said half the people disagree with a court, not a court's decision. Why do they still use that court if half the people think it's unfair? Or did you really mean half the people, after choosing a court they want, just disagree with the decisions?

Because they don't get to choose courts that agree with them. They don't get to go somewhere else if they don't like the decision. They can't just ignore the decisionif they don't like it.

They can do all of that and more in lib tard land.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1

Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court.

Do half the people disagree with a government court where you live???

A lot do - they would prefer sharia courts. Particularly when there is a property dispute between a man and a woman, you'd see Sharia courts getting a lot of business if it were a free for all.

Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court.

Do half the people disagree with a government court where you live???

You're forgetting that there are no laws in your liberland, and everyone has their own idea what the laws should be, and they all use courts which favor their view, and in general, there's lots of courts.

Again, no different than current international system of law. During disputes, lawyers for both parties come to an agreement on what court or arbitrage system they are willing to settle disputes in, and agree to follow the final court decision beforehand, or risk losing business.You guys are arguing about how things are stupid and will never work in the real world, when the things you are arguing against are already how things are in a real world.

You don't think it matters, but guns and amo don't pop out of thin air. The man with the bigger gun must have done something significant to get the money to pay for that big gun. That man now likely has a lot of interest in protecting his huge amount of wealth, too. Likely, he also has an interest in continuing to do what he did to keep that wealth coming in, right?

You mean like a tyrant? Or a cartel?

Perhaps, though even tyrants eventually realise that they will get way more money and support by doing the things their oppressed need. And those oppressed usually don't like to stay oppressed for long (see European monarchy, every dictator in history, USA, and current Middle East). Besides, I think the libertarians are arguing that governments have already become tyrants, and life under liberland tyrants won't be much worse.

No. It provides a central database and only ONE land registry so there are no conflicts and fraudulent claims.

If what you say was true, title research companies and title insurance would not exist. Where are those few hundred $$$ that I pay every time I buy or refinance a house going to?

That is to address fraud, missing documents, disputes, etc. within the context of law. Your system has no laws, thus there is no basis to anyone's claim.

Who said liberland has no laws? Contract law exist outside of government, and is based on prior decisions, which are fundamentally based on private property rights. Why would these contract laws not exist in liberland, if everyone thought it was a good idea to keep them going for the sake of being able to keep business going?As contract law is based on property and personal rights, I assume it is not against libertarian philosophy? Maybe a libertarian can confirm this?

No, you haven't. You said majority rules makes right, what it's freely chosen makes right. Liber tard ism has NEVER been chosen by any society ever,despite the fact that it is an option. So obviously it's not a better option, based on your own reasoning. If that isn't correct, give a detailed explanation why.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1

Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.

This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this...

Again, how? He will have nukes. If someone disagrees with him about something, his best move is to nuke them before they realise he is angry.

What company in their right mind would sell him, just a random stranger, nukes, at the expense of liability to millions of people, or risk of having their own facilities blown up? And why would he spend hundrens of millions on a nuke for the purpose of just hiking wherever he wants? Why not just spend those millions to buy the land to hike on outright?

Way to avoid the question.

Your view is that he is entitled to the nuke. Regardless of how he got it, he now has it and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. So now you have 1 guy that an never have any rule enforced against him. Everyone else will want a nukes as well just to avoid being forced to pay for "protection" by the nuke owner. Since uranium is easily mined and the design for nukes is already public, they will get them.

This is your ideal world - the free market will meet that demand

So please, explain how you defend yourself against a lunatic with a nuke?

No. It provides a central database and only ONE land registry so there are no conflicts and fraudulent claims.

If what you say was true, title research companies and title insurance would not exist. Where are those few hundred $$$ that I pay every time I buy or refinance a house going to?

That is to address fraud, missing documents, disputes, etc. within the context of law. Your system has no laws, thus there is no basis to anyone's claim.

Who said liberland has no laws? Contract law exist outside of government, and is based on prior decisions, which are fundamentally based on private property rights. Why would these contract laws not exist in liberland, if everyone thought it was a good idea to keep them going for the sake of being able to keep business going?As contract law is based on property and personal rights, I assume it is not against libertarian philosophy? Maybe a libertarian can confirm this?

Everything is voluntary, therefore laws are useless. They may exist, but no one can be forced to follow then or be punished for not following them, therefore they are useless and effectively do not exist.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1